Secondary Navigation

You asked for BIG BROTHER - you WON !!

I m still shocked that the TAKERs in America have finally exceeded the GIVERs but such must the case based on the last presidential election outcome.

Message 1 of 1
, Apr 5, 2009

I'm still shocked that the TAKERs in America have finally exceeded the
GIVERs but such must the case based on the last presidential election outcome.
Socialism is right around the corner and anyone dumb enough to think that
national healthcare is a good thing, or that "spreading the wealth" by TAKING from
the "haves" and giving to the "I don't wanna work people" is a good thing,
you truly deserve everything you are about to get. With that said, this
should just warm the cockles of your hearts as the Fourth Amendment shall soon be
damned !!!!

A pair of bills introduced in the U.S. Senate would grant the White House
sweeping new powers to access private online data, regulate the cybersecurity
industry and even shut down Internet traffic during a declared "cyber
emergency."

Senate bills No. 773 and 778, introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.V.,
are both part of what's being called the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which would
create a new Office of the National Cybersecurity Advisor, reportable
directly to the president and charged with defending the country from cyber attack.

A working draft of the legislation obtained by an Internet privacy group
also spells out plans to grant the Secretary of Commerce access to all privately
owned information networks deemed to be critical to the nation's
infrastructure "without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy
restricting such access."

Who might be watching you without you knowing it? Get "Spychips" and see how
major corporations and government are planning to track your every move!

Privacy advocates and Internet experts have been quick to sound the alarm
over the act's broadly drawn government powers.

"The cybersecurity threat is real," says Leslie Harris, president of the
Center for Democracy and Technology, which obtained the draft of S.773, "but
such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and
networks could harm both security and privacy."

"The whole thing smells bad to me," writes Larry Seltzer in eWeek, an
Internet and print news source on technology issues. "I don't like the chances of
the government improving this situation by taking it over generally, and I
definitely don't like the idea of politicizing this authority by putting it in
the direct control of the president."

In a statement explaining the bill's introduction, Sen. Rockefeller said,
"We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs – from our water to
our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records – the
list goes on."

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, who is co-sponsoring the bill, added, "If we
fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina."

Critics, however, have pointed to three actions Rockefeller and Snowe
propose that may violate both privacy concerns and even constitutional bounds:

First, the White House, through the national cybersecurity advisor, shall
have the authority to disconnect "critical infrastructure" networks from the
Internet – including private citizens' banks and health records, if
Rockefeller's examples are accurate – if they are found to be at risk of cyber attack.
The working copy of the bill, however, does not define what constitutes a
cybersecurity emergency, and apparently leaves the question to the discretion of
the president.

Second, the bill establishes the Department of Commerce as "the
clearinghouse of cybersecurity threat and vulnerability information," including the
monitoring of private information networks deemed a part of the "critical
infrastructure."

Third, the legislation proposes implementation of a professional licensing
program for certifying who can serve as a cybersecurity professional.

And while the critics concede the need for increased security, they object
to what is perceived as a dangerous and intrusive expansion of government
power.

"There are some problems that we face which need the weight of government
behind them," writes Seltzer in eWeek. "This is not the same as creating a new
federal bureaucracy setting rules over what computer security has to be and
who can do it."

Jennifer Granick, civil liberties director at the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, told Mother Jones the bill is "contrary to what the Constitution
promises us."

According to Granick, granting the Department of Commerce oversight of the
"critical" networks, such as banking records, would grant the government access
to potentially incriminating information obtained without cause or warrant,
a violation of the Constitution's prohibition against unlawful search and
seizure.

"What are the critical infrastructure networks? The examples provided are
'banking, utilities, air/rail/auto traffic control, telecommunications.' Let's
think about this," writes Seltzer. "I'm especially curious as to how you take
the telecommunications networks off of the Internet when they are, in large
part, what the Internet is comprised of. And if my bank were taken offline, I
would think about going into my branch and asking for all of my deposits in
cash."

S. 778, which would establish the Office of the National Security Advisor,
and S. 773, which provides for developing a cadre of governmental cybersecurity
specialists and procedures, have both been read twice and referred to
committee in the Senate.